A War On Science - SBS 8:30 28th Jan 07

[CoombellKid]

The title says it all, Yup you probably guessed it.

Now this thread will probably be locked :sadeyes: why because I'm a nobody : )

regards,CS

[matt]

Aw, come on Rob.

Talking like that has a tendency to invite trouble and become a self-fulfilling prophecy;)

But thanks for the heads-up. Could be interesting given the recent lengthy debate here, which wasn't shut down.

No-one will be upset by you alerting us to something interesting, surely???

[Doug]

thanks for the info and maybe a little 'reverse psychology'?

cheers,
Doug

[jjjnettie]

A War On Science
Alternate title
Return of the Dark Ages

[CoombellKid]

Sorry folks, it's on SBS not ABC

regards,CS

[matt]

Thanks

Just in time:)

[h0ughy]

OK I watched it. Seemed to try to bring out the issues in an intelligent and diverse manner.

[matt]

Recorded it.

Will watch later

[avandonk]

There is only one issue. There are people pushing a faith based belief system and calling it science. They are quite entitled to whatever delusions they wish to have but don’t pass it off as science to other people poorly equipped to make any evaluation of what they are claiming.
Again anything that cannot be tested as to its veracity is not science.

Bert

[CoombellKid]

Well it has cemented my views, and I know which side of the fence I sit on.
I also tend to think some those arguing for the ID side were just jumping on
a bandwagon for 15 seconds of fame. Interesting to see 2 minites into the
show we saw GW's face pop up. To see the way these fanatics use the bible
as though god himself wrote it, where in reality it was written by man and
possibly one mans point of view or interpretation of. Like David Attenborough
said to explain the unexplianed with or via some supernatural power or god per
say... explains nothing.

regards,CS

[matt]

Just finished watching it too.

I was struck by the same comment by Attenborough, Rob.

That while science and Evolution can explain 95 percent of who we are and how we got here with proof and science to back its findings, Intelligent Design explains nothing.

It is only a matter of time before the remaining 5% is pieced together and then there will be no shadows for religio-pseudo scientists to hide in.

[Doug]

Drat! I missed it; too busy watching Eta Carina.

[CoombellKid]

I think that’s what scares any non-evolution believing religion the most. The
very fabric of their beliefs being undone to a fallacy. And in the words of Bert
who mentions above we were all "people poorly equipped to make any evaluation" at
some stage during the last 2000 or so years.


regards,CS

[netwolf]

If Science as it is today, only deals in teaching facts and not the Scientific method then there needs to be a war on science. What needs to change is that we need to show kids how the method works and how the theories come about. If we teach them the method and not preach it as a Gospel, then we can entrust the next generation to continue the long tradition of Science.
What is fact today becomes tomorrows history, and evolves into a new and current theory of the subject.

The smallest particle is an atom, The smallest particle is a electron, The smallest particle is a quark... and so on and so forth.

There are 8 planets, There are 9 planets, There 10 planets, there to many to count, there are different types of planets so many of these and so many of those. Publishers of Science books must be rolling in money.

I recall the old Physics joke, about a vistor to university being shown there most prized possession. And there in a glass cabinet for all to see was the Physics test paper. The guest ask will not the kids learn the answers, the lecturer responded well you see the answers change every year.
I recall my dean of engineering's ideal test was an open book were you could bring anything you wanted, but you would still find it hard to pass the test if you did not understand the core of it.

Instead if it was taught as a method then we would not have to rewrite textbooks every time a so called scientific fact changes. And we don't have to be concerned by theories that are little out there from our point of view, because students will have the tools to critically assess them. This is the key folks give the children to become critical thinkers not an encyclopedia of information that becomes outdated. There are no absolutes in Science only possibilities.

Regards
Fahim

[g__day]

ID is bad psuedo-science being used to push a religious view point out of the faith arena by disguising it as science.

They want to pick on evolution and true scientific process, fine, I'll mention one point of their historic faith - the flood in Noah's time. Not where the water came from, not where it went, but how much moved in the alotted time span and the energy required to do this amazing feat. Put simply you'd need 10 ^ 26 joules of energy to do the job; by a few very simple calculations!!! That's the equivalent of unleashing an atomic bomb the size of Nagaski, on every square kilometre of the Earth's surface, every fourteen minutes, for one year...

Now nowhere in the Earth's make up do we see that energy signature from an event 4,200 years ago... I wonder why?

ID shouldn't pick fights with scientists, and especially not mind bogglying dumb fights. I'm glad the supreme court kicked in to scupper IDer's plans before Bush jet propelled them a step closer to reality.

[maksutover]

Hi all
I feel like i should give my opinion. Im not for/against ID or Evolution, although im studing science at uni. But the belief in the creator for me is imperative! Not a god of the gaps as some like to say, but a thing of absolute beauty! A lord of absolute love and mercy, and which all i see is his signs.
Recall the story of the group of fish who went to the wise fish on the other side of the ocean, so he could expain to them where WATER is.
"Show me where water is not, and ill show you where it is!" he said. I say the same about the lord, show me where IS NOT, and perhaps we can discuss we IS !

Regs,
Mak.

[matt]

Eh?

[Rodstar]

Haven't we gone down this path already on another thread, and pretty much said everything that needs to be said (on both sides)? That is, other than the show itself, of course, although, again, that seems to be raising the same issues.

[matt]

I suspect you are right, Rod.

Although people might like to offer their opinions of the show and how it treated the issue/s.

The difficulty is separating comment on the show from going down the path of ID Vs Evolution which as you say, is now a well-worn track

[avandonk]

Could we please get this right. Science has nothing to say about any God. It cannot prove or disprove any existence of a faith related construct.
The trouble seems to be that simplistic dogma arising from some fundamental faiths whose leading practitioners then impose rules on the real world and when disproved by science seems to put doubt in the original faith. It does not put doubt in their faith, only in their self assumed power over others. The people promulgating these real world rules see their power threatened by science.

It is about power not faith.



Bert

[TidaLpHasE]

Spot on Bert, the power to have the masses on side, a numbers game.

I watched the show until i had heard enough of the fake statements and deluded views from the i.d side.

It's a new angle of attack they are using to try and justify religion, which is only a belief, nothing else, and that creation was as the book says so.

[xelasnave]

Mak said
Hi all
I feel like i should give my opinion. Im not for/against ID or Evolution, although im studing science at uni. But the belief in the creator for me is imperative! Not a god of the gaps as some like to say, but a thing of absolute beauty! A lord of absolute love and mercy, and which all i see is his signs.
Recall the story of the group of fish who went to the wise fish on the other side of the ocean, so he could expain to them where WATER is.
"Show me where water is not, and ill show you where it is!" he said. I say the same about the lord, show me where IS NOT, and perhaps we can discuss we IS !

Regs,
Mak.

Well Mak I can not argue with that maybe we better ask the wise fish some more important questions:D .
Ask him about the separation needed between "faith" and "science". No doubt he will say both are everywhere just see what one wishes to see.:lol: :lol: :lol:
You have faith and there is nothing wrong with that.I have had faith and I know how it can play on ones mind.. It turned out to be a symptom of a mental disorder:screwy: in my case:D so forgive me if I worry about others feelings of faith:shrug: . we need to keep faith seperate to science..its no big deal.. I am not saying one cant have faith but one simply can not corrupt science and scientific method..no problems there I would think.:shrug: If the ID scientist disagrees then he is by definition...not a scientist but a man of faith..
It strikes me that the ID scientists are going into a battle of witts completly unarmed but carries a shield of faith that deflects any blow that may penetrate the facts and the facts are science can not prove or disprove the roll of God, or if he does or does not exsist.
However I find that sort of rationalisation (it really sounds a "fishy" approach) the very thing that is a worry... letting the "inteligent design scientist" loose to determine knowledge one knows he will put together based on his faith.
If IDers are into God then let them get out and use their resources for helping folk who need help..not spiritually but by getting them food , clothing, shelter and decent health care.. I ask who is behind the push to minimise social problems and take sociall security away from Government control to place it in the hands of "organisations".. when down and out will I get a feed and a blanket if I say I dont believe in God I ask? Social security is not charity and should not be given over to the hands of "charity" it is demeaning to those less fortunates who need care.
Religion is trying to move into areas it should not..science and Government..get away I say, stay away and be content with looking after your personal morals and beliefs..
alex

[neB]

I just wish ID was around when I was getting my science degree.

It would have made the exams a doddle. Any time I didn't know an answer I'd just make something up, claim it was ID and ask the lecturer to show me where I was wrong (which of course he couldn't do).

Youth of today - they have it too easy. Luxury.

[matt]

:lol:

Nicely summed up.

[CoombellKid]

Oh well, I suppose in the event where a civilisation ending comet comes
crashing into Earth. We can all sit back for a moment and wonder just
how intelligent the design was :doh::help:

Random :P or The Creator :rolleyes:

regards,CS

[xelasnave]

Well Rob the dinosaurs must have been a disappointment for the "designer":shrug: ...it is popular belief they met that fate:eyepop: . Radical way of sortta starting again:) .
I was alarmed to hear a program on the BBC which although sounding scientific the drift was that all roads lead to a point where because we can not explain past that point there could be only one answer..a God. Staggering to hear the apparently intelligent folk cop out with such a proposition:shrug: . I would like to think just because we can’t offer an answer that at that point we must inject a “God” to take care of the loose ends. The other thing that was alarming the belief running thru the show that the Universe exists because we exist:eyepop: :lol: :lol: :lol: . Rather high handed and arrogant but coming from folk who one would expect much better. If I can track it down I will post it if and when I find it. But my point even someone of scientific persuasion must have been left thinking that even the top brains need a God to make sense of it all. Still a greater concern is that one can not but feel ID had a hand in this rather credible show. It underlines the fact that fundamentalists are dangerous to rational thought and reasonable assessment of data.
alex

[Doug]

'Popular belief' says it all; ehh Alex? Believe anything , anything at all as long as it doesn't talk of floods.:screwy: Lets ignore the thousands of life forms that have become extinct in 'geologically' recent times.
As Bert said (though I doubt he would apply it here)"Again anything that cannot be tested as to its veracity is not science":shrug:

Doug

[xelasnave]

Hi Doug I am glad you noticed those words "popular belief" I use them often in an effort to underline that often that is what we are often dealing with:thumbsup: ... one is on safer ground if one sees all facts as such;) . The little I know about the reasons for the dinosaurs disappearance oferrs various views. The popular belief comes from geologically surveying "the world" and finding äpparent" evidence of a comet hit. Again the word apparent is a good one be cause it indicates merely that the proposition presented offers reasonable evidence.. others will say the apparent evidence is fact others will say it is simply one way of looking at it. The time frame of such a "mass extintion event" I have seen at a matter of hours to a 100,000 year cycle of events.. Everything finally comes down to ones individual belief :) ..and you are talking to someone as I said before does not accept the big bang theory, that is "popular belief"in my book:shrug: ..in others it is a scientifically proven fact,... I simply have a belief that it does not add up.. Others will argue that I wont consider the facts on the table.. but I have:eyepop: . I dont accept the moment of inflation no more than I accept the days of creation. So those beliefs and my unfortunate style of communicating shows me why I will rub folk up the wrong way;) . But in spite of my unfortunate style of deliving my views and that it comes across that I am set in my ways etc I am always suspicious of popular belief and look for alternatives... a comet wipe out for the dinasours sounds good to me but that does not set it in stone.. they could have died out because of a virus or other things and a comet hit around that time was a coincidence:) .
AND you make a good point as to accepting one thing and not accepting another :thumbsup: .. I dont know what to think sometimes and I think thats why I throw things out there hoping someone will add more or show my current "popular personal belief" to be flawed or add to its progression:whistle: :) :) :) .

alex

[xelasnave]

As to the flood, the fact that reference to a flood appears in many histories suggests there is a basis for the presumption that some peoples experienced "something”,
In the times we look for a flood, given peoples limited knowledge of the world (a presumption maybe wrong as world travel could have been possible just slower than today) their world may have been flooded but not necessarily all the world.. so I can accept the proposition with qualification. I could not go along with a literal interpretation as given in the Bible as to do so does not sit well with the implications of feeding every animal on the planet, energy required etc. However I could accept that a man of vision prepared a craft that carried him, his family and his animals to safety and that such an adventure would be remembered and praised.
But facts are illusive, yet we build our personal realities upon them... I do my best with what I can to assess things that I have read about... nothing more.
alex

[Doug]

Alex, Dinosaurs did not become extinct because of a comet strike See image attached for a more plausable reason.:lol:

Doug

[xelasnave]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I love it... and having had to be with my daughter whilst "we" watched the Dinotopia movies during the holidays it really had me rolling:rofl: :thumbsup: .
(Dinotopia is an undiscovered island somewhere??? where dinosaurs talk English as well as their own language and play an active part in the human society)
alex

[White Rabbit]

Hi guys,

Long time listener first time calling.

I stumbled on a very interesting documentary on Google vid the touches briefly on the subject.

Have look and see what you think.
I could be the case tha the creator is just a computer program with some wicked skills in C++.

WR
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-7044753105944203252&q=what+we+still+dont+know

[White Rabbit]

BTw are you guys talking about the bbc program New Horizons.

If so and you missed it you can down load it here.

http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secureurl=ugAAAEEHGjIugGsYgtPjDFs6Z fiMTyE-6fWCzuePgG-ey_8fdDNl5noRGme7nzkONT_Ta8ce0bmTrG HTw6RuB48udCRgM9VY-FVMXvbKQklrmuJMsmIYhv2DRs9Gt2_Yo96i 0G5VZsZkzu3jSTNwKQPNVQjBjmW2HuShcxs 21SVVT3pQ1OR9biRz2Y-iY0j9j340qEf3xFV4o1qezd3mpqDHLRMeAP XVusnlHFuljiN1Swk4a9lJLgIaQeKH_f3L9 qGi2A&sigh=HQOjk8ofH4Za8M9zcR4ZTj7KUMg&begin=0&len=2966720&docid=7947864133148073999
docid:7947864133148073999

[xelasnave]

Hi there Mr Rabbit welcome to the forum and the discussion:thumbsup: , ,thanks for the link er but dial up leaves me in the dark when it comes to such new wonders:sadeyes: .
I cant find what I seek but thats why I hang my car keys around my neck., more likely a personal problem:D ...unless they have hidden it having been exposed as ..well what could you call such folk.. pretenders?? nice enough until I can really hear it again.. dont want to make long appologies after a second hearing.
Maybe I was too harse as I now believe the Universe will cease to exist when I do not continue to breath ;) ... I am personally right there but for all else certainly wrong:D . Which was more or less my point re BBC show.. to think a human proporting to represent other humans and lead them to an understanding of the Universe could say such a thing.defies reason.. again I say this is only a personal opinion but have I ever been wrong?:lol: :lol: :lol: Well if you ask me of course not;) ... such self centred nonsence is ok for a laugh but to hear it as Science irritates me and I would like to know who got such a program to air:shrug: . and investigate it more.
alex
The opinions expressed herein are mine and I dont blame a sad childhood or lack of a social life and such views should not be taken as being right or offerred to you through me by a higher authority, and do not reflect any views other than my own:) :) :) .

[Argonavis]

Mak

Ever thought of moving from the science faculty to theology?

[CoombellKid]

Here!! Here!! especially bush dialup... the great step backwards. Infact
I can get info faster using the bush telegraph than the web sometimes:lol: :lol: :lol:

Too many neo-conservatives running this world

regards,CS

[xelasnave]

Now that I have a city address I will fix that problem...do you want any movies downloaded?;)

Neo conservative now thats a strange labeling... neo = new and conservative sortta represents old ..you are right it must be them:lol: :lol: :lol: .

The thing with that BBC show those British always sound so "educated" so they can sell me easily, having the greatest of respect for educated folk and British folk and of course the BBC..if it is on the BBC it must be true..like if its in the paper eh... but my interpretation is/was it was sneaky. I dont like people taking advantage of my underlieing stupidity.
alex

[CoombellKid]

As quoted from the very documentary we're talking about.

Neo- combining form new, recent, or a modern form of.... ie: ID based on an old theology

Conservative - adj. opposing change, cautious, conventional in style.... ie: those pushing
for ID, the ones running the prayer meetings in the Oval office and wont believe that god
had nothing to do with it

Well thats how I took it to mean.

regards,

[xelasnave]

Well I think if the horsemen are waiting these guys have openned the gates and pointing them where to go:lol: :lol: :lol: .
alex

[xelasnave]

It is a worry when you think about the beliefs of those in power and where they "read" about the future of mankind. What the mind can conceive the mind can achieve... think of what is on the mind of many.. and they have the power to make the future happen like they see it.
alex

[Doug]

Yeah? reminds me of Nimrod:eyepop: :scared:
Nah don't mind me, just babble on :P :lol:

Doug

[xelasnave]

Well its about time Doug I can only babble on for so long er maybe a little longer in truth:D .
alex

[CoombellKid]

And unfortunately that is a very scary thing :help:

regards,CS

[CoombellKid]

Hey! I like your babbling, it goes along with whats in my head. Except you
can explain it better, where as mine are like a bunch of notes scattered all
over my desk :lol: :lol: :lol:

regards,CS

[Doug]

Hey, don't tell me my last post was a 747.;) :)

[CoombellKid]

Watch tomorrow night SBS 8:30pm The Power of Nightmares

Alex, it's about Neo-Conservatives... I watched last week and
I think that where I may of got the term.

regards,CS

[xelasnave]

No TV here am I blessed or what?
Alex

[CoombellKid]

You didn't happen to catch "Godless in America" last night

btw, I'm not a believe everything I see on TV type of person
just like the interesting one lol

regards,CS

[Outbackmanyep]

All i can say is that theres too many "TOOLS" in the world and not enough sheds to keep them in!

Cheers!

[PeteMo]

Hi All
I did not see the program, so cannot comment, but will add an opinion as a bible believing (so I guess that label's me 'fundamentalist') Christian and creationsist (Yes I have a degree in Theology and did an Astronomy module as part of a BSc course). I don't see a war between science and religion myself, because it was Astronomy (science) that led me to become a Christian.

Science tries to tell us 'how' we came to be where we are now, where are religion tries to tell us 'why'. Genesis is not a science text book, but still gives a shopping list account of life appearing on the Earth. There are many ways to interpret Genesis, that do not necesarily exclude each other, nor negate any scientific enquiries. For instance, the word used to translate 'Day" is the Hebrew "Yom", but is best translated 'age' or 'era', so clearly cannot be a 24 hour day. Also I don't believe that God would deliberatley deceive us by 'faking' the age of the earth or the universe as most Creationists would argue. There are also some amazing scientific insights into the world, like the earth being 'round' not flat as was the world view when!

At the end of the day, none of us were there when the universe came into being (if it did at all as it could be eternal like God). All we have to go on are the remains of the universe, be it layers of rock, fossils, and animals alive today to apply as many scientific disciplines as we can. I cannot do an experiment to prove God's existence, just biolgists cannot do an experiment to prove evolution happened. In that sense both Creationist and Evolutionist views belong more to Meta-Science since we have no empirical way to prove either.

The media paints a simplistic 'them and 'us', 'Fundamentalists' and 'Scientists', 'Bible Bashers' and 'Evolution Egotists' when the actual fields of science and religion are vast and complex with a great detail of cross feritilisation of ideas. Unfortunately the media is not interested in the majority of us who get along, but the minority in both the religious and scientific camps that cause a sensation. There is dogmatism in science as much as religion as both use their world view to determine how we interpret things.

In the religious camp when 'Evolution' is mentioned it is seen as an attempt to pull the rug from underneath their belief system, when the scientist is only trying to tell them how he thinks the carpet was made. Likewise, in the scientific camp whenever 'Creationist' is mentioned, it is seen as the rantings of some demented preacher or country bumpkin with no 'proper' understandings of 'science', instead of a theologian offering an alternate idea to the equation. Get both camps to watch a cuttlefish changing colour and you see amazement and wonder on all their faces.

Both sides need to show respect for the other's views, which is why, even as a Creationsist, I prefer to see the merits of Evolution taught alongside Creationism. Half the fun in science is when contradictory or apparently conflicting ideas are shared. Is light a Particle a Wave or Something else? The whole Creation/Evolution debate is far more complex than we realise. Just as there are extreme differences of opinion in the Creationsist camp, so there are also extreme differences in the Evolutionist camp.

We don't know everything, and unlike the rationalists of the late 19th century who thought one day we would soon know it all, I think the gap between what we know and what we don't know gets bigger with every question we ask or answer.

Whilst I may come from the other side of the tracks to my evolutionist friend, WE BOTH LOVE TRAINS!

[matt]

You make some fair points, Pete. I find your comments about the word "Yom" very interesting and another reminder to Men of Science and Men of God/Faith alike that much of the Bible has been misread/misinterpreted and isn't to be taken "literally" as a scientific textbook.

But, as a journalist of more than 20 years, can I ask that we don't keep media bashing and shooting the messenger when it suits us.

Can I use the recent trials/stumbles/foibles of the Mufti here is Australia as an example of how foolish and duplicitous we look when we quite clearly make horrendous comments, only to retract them when we are "caught out" and use the age-old "I was mis-quoted... I was taken out of context" alibi.

Funny how often it's the poor old media/journo's fault when in fact we fall on our own sword.

There are good and bad plumbers, bakers, mechanics, hairdressers, doctors, lawyers, IT specialists, accountants .... and journalists.

I don't know why we should expect the media to be any different to any other profession where human beings are involved?

[Doug]

I doubt "we expect the media to be any different" from "any other profession". Rather it is widely recognised that the media to varying degrees dress up information to sell. No one wants to get exited about a blandly reported news item. Dress it up to sell; sales is what drives media. Other professions are interested in the truth, albeit 'as they see it'.

[matt]

What's the from bit about?

And please direct me to whomever has possession of the complete and total "truth" as you understand it:)

[PeteMo]

Hi Matt
When I meant 'the media' I was thinking more of TV and Programs/Documentaries specifically rather than journalists per se. I do know that some investigative journalists take incredible risks to get inside information, especially infiltrating gangs or terrorist movements. Take the French crew that got inside footage of militia in Iraq trying to shoot down planes with missiles. We all know that some news men have not been so fortunate and paid the ultimate price for being in the right place at the wrong time.

I'm not sure it's possible to have 100% impartial media because we are all human afterall complete with our biases and phobias. Somewhere an editorial team will decide what to report and what parts to screen. Out of 8 hours filming a protest, do we show the 7 hours 59 minutes of nothing happening or the 1 minute of violence?

You're quite right about using and abusing the media when it suits us. We thinks it's great when programs air our views, but are not so accommodating when programs presenting the opposite are broadcast. Like the Depeche Mode songs title we should strive to 'Get the balance right'.

Back to the science and faith debate, it seems to me that the two are very closely related. Look at the early men of science like Sir Isaac Newton who wanted to try and explain God's mysteries of creation. Their faith led them to pursue and pioneer modern science. Then there is me, amazed at what science can show about our universe, that it lead me to faith. Where would I be without archaeologists, biologists, chemists, astronomers who all in some way help bring realism to biblical accounts that deepen our understanding of the cultures of the day. If anything, science has supported my faith, not destroyed it.

Take an example like 'The Star of Bethlehem'. what could it have been? In comes the Astronomer and presents several possible sightings dated between 7 -2 BC that could have been seen and interpreted as a sign of the coming King of The Jews. Back to interpretation again. What is meant by 'For we have seen his star in the East'. Was it the star they saw when they looked East, or were they physically in the East when they made the observation of the star?

Neither science nor faith are static, but as new discoveries are made we get fresh revelations and insights too. Both Theologian and Scientist have the unenviable task of making science and faith relevant to the next generation. I just hope they do a better job than in my generation.

[matt]

But who do you think put these programs together?

I'm not particularly put out by your comments. In fact, I quite appreciate a lot of what you have to say:)

Keep in mind that by even posting on this website we are all effectively members of "The Media".

Anyway, your comments are well made and I find the point/s you are making are interesting and valid.

[xelasnave]

Keep in mind that by even posting on this website we are all effectively members of "The Media
Matt I have never seen it that way but I guess that is the only way really very interesting thought it really is... I have a post running elsewhere that has hit 13,000 I say its no doubt search bots but said to someone even if someone picks up the news paper they dont read it cover to cover but that does not mean articles are not present.
alex

[xelasnave]

PeteMo the only thing I can disagree with you upon, not saying I share your views however, is that you could see yourself as a fundamentalist. I dont class you in that boat. Mate you dont come across that way to me and that is so very comforting:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: . When I was into God I saw it that science only explained the way God did things I had no trouble reconcilling the two.
AND in truth my responce was to a program that in my view was deceptive and yet presented that science must finally come to a point where to go futher could only be done by introducing God into the equation.
My view the Universe is infinite and eternal, I could not concieve God as having anyother quality it is man who needs a start and a finish because he cant concive otherwise. I dislike the big bang as I feel it simply is as difficult to swallow as the biblical version. But as I was saying to my father I find it just as easy to accept the Bibles version of 6 days to get the job as to accept the concept of inflation an ingredent without which it appears the big bang theory can not stand without providing it as an ingredient.. but inflation means all grew at a trillion times in a split second .They can show me the experiments whatever but my little brain will not accept that
..But I like your appoach. A big bang can not grow the Universe from a "seed" to infinity that is simply impossible and leaves me seeing a Universe floating in a sea of "nothing" again something (nothing) which can not exist on my belief. Your thoughts are very ordered and holding an understanding of the plain fact no one really knows for sure..but you still hold your faith..no problems that is faith and humility.. anytime that someone says their way is the only way I find it hard to go along. Not to recognise you could be wrong is simply wrong.. I give that impression but what I say here is I am open minded not empty minded.
I think reasonable input like yours is to be greatly encouraged as you are very refreshing as to what your mob generally come up with... and I hope my questioning of the big bang is refreshing to you..but I am not a scientist and dont claim to represent that side of things.
Please go on you obviously have a lot to contribute :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
alex

[Doug]

G'day Peter,
I certainly wouldn't call you a fundamentalist either; given your quoted view.
Beyond that I must say I can't imagine how you arrive at the above stated conclusions. 'YOM' like any other word in any language should be understood in context. Did you know that the panel of 70+ Hebrew scholars translating text from their native tongue into Greek used a word that is unarguably referring to a day? Actually sun-up to sun-down rather than 24hours; 'there was evening and there was morning' takes care of the rest of the 24 hours, wouldn't you agree?

I don't understand the argument that says God deceived.
Adam and Eve surely were not created as Zygotes , embryos or fetuses, not even new born bubs. No they needed to be created mature enough to be accountable and able to feed themselves etc. They must have begun their existence with age. Of course one could dismiss them as myth, but that would do away with the necessity for Christ, so then where is Christianity?
We would be left only with churchianity and Jesianity. To continue:
He did this and He did that and declared that it was good. Must that mean that a thing is perfect rather than that it serves His purpose well? Or, to put it another way, if (for the sake of argument)creation took place 6-10k years ago, but we find stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away, how is that a fake? I consider that only when the clay presumes to judge the potter can the accusation of fake be made.
If the light between the stars was put in place, what is wrong with that.
Just as Adam must have been created with age but no history.
We don't have to cry "Fake"; we can just enjoy the light show that has been provided, and be thankful that we don't have to sit around for millions of years waiting for it to arrive for our enjoyment.
So much for ranting, I don't want to wander toooo far off topic.

[Argonavis]

Drivel

ok - if religion answers the question why, then why?

Mr Diety created the world cause he had some sadistic thoughts one day, and decided to amuse Himself????



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvWdkz8Ra54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaZDcS-rMf4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKM_JlCIMak

[Argonavis]

Excellent example. Almost certainly a myth and legend, like the rest of the Bible. I don't know why astronomers go to untold lengths to try and "explain" this in terms of real astronomical phenomena, or the astrological intrepretation of real astronomical phemonena.

[Doug]

And now for a more informed approach:

Much of the Bible is concerned with the Christ. myth???? no, there is independent testimony by at least one Historian of the time. Research Antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter three verses one-three.(Josephus, a Jewish historian and Roman citizen through adoption by the Emperor Flavian, and not a Christian).

I can agree that Astronomers are waisting their time trying to identify the 'Star of Bethlehem'. The text clearly shows it to be other than celestial. If they bothered to gather all the information available, no such search would ever have been conducted.

[CoombellKid]

Any chance it could be a plain old nova:shrug:

The chat on SNP around Xmas time, that it may of been a conjunction
of 2 or more planets, but that would only last several plus hours at best.

I always had a problem with Marry's pregnancy, was it really adultery.

regards,CS

[Doug]

Well there is only one reference to the 'Star of Bethlehem' so regardless of belief or not, it should be understood in the context of that account.
Ok, Matthew ch 2 v9:" When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was." Think about it; not even the Moon could be said to 'stand over' a particular place. An object that was perhaps no higher than 100 meters might be said, seen to come to rest over a certain place. That disqualifies comets, nova, planetary conjunctions, meteors, Asteroids and even high altitude weather balloons:D .


Not as much a problem as Mary did I reckon.:)
Well I suppose the question acknowledges the fact of the pregnancy; that is a helpful sign:) . Again, taking the account at face value, why could not the creator (assuming His reality) arrange such a comparitavely simple thing? But maybe the whole thing is just myth, so Mary's pregnancy would have to be myth along with her suspected adultery.

[xelasnave]

Good morning everyone is it not a wonderful day:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: .
Thank you Doug for sharing your views.
Doug my worry is that Jesus and the events of that time were recorded many years after those who could offer input were long gone. Given that humans tend to pick out what they like and disregard what they don’t like I see that aspect as possibly taking away from the credibility of the facts recorded.
I keep my mind open to the possibility that by the time the facts were laid down the story could have changed:shrug: .
But the issue here should not be one of it did it did not approach there should not be a war waged by on side against the other unless a side shows signs that they can not entertain the principle that there may well be another view:) .
Religion can’t use science to justify things on a selective approach nor can science do similar and it was the way science in this case..not science but purporting to be science.
On the many points you raise you have only one reference book (which is a collection of many books with many folk offering input to combine them is a mission statement).
Faith and fact may not be in the same boat:shrug: .
Your approach interests me and I enjoy the insight as to how others can view the world:thumbsup: .
What I find the most difficult thing to accept and the reason I made my comments re the cop out by folk purporting to be scientists why the need when investigating the Universe when confronted with a brick wall only one explanation can be put forward and forgetting that science took us to that place then the matter can only be explained that that’s where Gods hand did the work.
I was a believer but lost my faith because fair and reasonable questioning was met with ...the bible says it happened this way or that so your perceived inaccuracies can put to one side .. don’t raise your fair and reasonable questions ..Accept something that defies common sense move forward on faith alone.. I am not that smart but I am smarter than that:whistle: :shrug: :D :) .
Having said that I believe I use Christian principles but when looking deeper into my belief I realize I have taken the parts I like and dropped the parts I don’t like:eyepop: ... and that was what I was trying to point out as the difficulty of taking history a couple of generations after the event and proclaiming it as fact.. could others suffer as similar condition as I have outlined:shrug: . I am not trying to question your faith I would be the first to support it.. without faith that we count for something one has to be very strong to think of reasons for going on, however looking out there and imagining further still I find it difficult to see it was all made for us... I want to believe it was all made for us..me personally in fact:lol: :lol: :lol: but I would be prepared to consider that maybe it just “is” and that we just “are”... a disturbing prospect for those who need a reason … are e humans the centre of the Universe? Maybe just maybe we are not:eyepop: :eyepop: :eyepop: .
Again I think the matter of concern is the hijacking of science by those wishing to present their views as the only possibility... do that and if there was a God that gave us reason I think he would be horrified that we used our gift so unwisely.
I think one can question any man who says he is God today I so can not understand why when someone says it back then it makes it acceptable today, I think one can question any man who says he knows he is right to the exclusion of any other views available irrespective of their merit.
Hope the original observation I tried to make can be looked at and considered rather that being dismissed as nonsense. I think my observation does not say don’t have faith but simply don’t run to God if you cant think of the answers.. look at that one along the lines of what it is ..we don’t know..offerring God as the answer to what happened on the other side of the big bang for example is simply a cop out based on religion not science.
I like the expression we can agree to disagree:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: it worries me when that can’t end discussions such as we are having here. I am supportive of all approaches and I encourage you to give that approach a go not withstanding your faith which I will not question but accept as your faith and belief.
Also if we get too hard on each other the moderators are placed in a perplexing situation and will closes the thread and each person then can not share their thoughts and that would be regrettable:sadeyes: .
Alex

[CoombellKid]

Well the old saying goes, and maybe where it comes from... "You shouldn't
always believe what you read" or something like that.

regards,CS

[Doug]

Rob I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. My point was that it is a waist of time to speculate on half a report. Not trying to convince you of anything in particular. I just can't see the wisdom in taking any written record to be a smorgasbord from which to pick and choose; that's all. For example, if I report that I saw a red car being driven down the road, either accept it or reject it as you choose, but don't settle for just the fact that I might have seen a red car and speculate about if it was parked in someone's driveway or in a used car lot.;)
cheers,
Doug

[Doug]

G'day Alex, you said :
I think you are referring to the gospels. I am referring to a secular historian.
If we can't place some credibility in the work of historians......:eyepop: :sadeyes: .

You went on to say:
Alex I am simply responding to points raised by others am I not? PeterMo raised the issue of ages of things being faked. (not that he was personally asserting that) The allegation of faked ages is based on reference to what?
The book of beginnings:Genesis. Should I then go off and quote Beatrix Potter or Shakespear?
Again, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone about anything other than the need to be logical rather than emotional. I say logical rather than emotional (or irrational) because if a person wants to criticize God, then logically they must hold Him to be apart from man and allow for the fact that He must necessarily be an entity beyond human experience. That does not mean a person must accept His reality in their heart, just not treat Him as another man, which would be an absurd position to take would it not?

Alex you go on to say:
Frankly Alex it seems to me that your faith was stronger than your fellows. It takes a lot to go against the tide, and only an honest person can admit that there are a few discrepancies where plainly there are! But that doesn't bring the whole lot down like a card castle unless you you have built a card castle instead of a solid edifice. But I wander off track I think.

cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

I think in truth Doug my problem is more with religion than with God my problem is more with man than God my problem is more with me than with God:sadeyes: .
You alert me to the possibility that I have stopped seeing him as God but as you say like one would see another man I cant go deeper than that.
Thank you for your wisdom it is not lost on me I can assure you:) .
alex

[PeteMo]

Hi Alex, Doug
Does that make me more normal if I'm not considered as a fundamentalist? I bascially see the science and faith debate today as the Church reaping what it sowed when it persecuted scientists. Copernicus was a man of God, a Canon in the church, yet he would have been tortured and burnt at a stake if he had voiced his findings. I've read the Bible at least twice over, using several translations and cannot find a verse anywhere that says "And the Lord God made the Sun go round the Earth". Most of Jesus's rebukes were against the so called religious leaders of His day, for taking the letter of the law instead of the spirit of it. I dare say He would have the same to say of the Church in the Middle Ages and now.

The Geneisis account is strikingly similar to the modern day scientific account, which makes it all the more remarkable, considering Moses had no modern sciences like we do. Neither does Genesis rule out Macro Evolution, Aquatic Ape, Explosive Evolution etc or any combination of these as the process used. Genesis does state that man was made from something that already existed. I once came across a literal translation 'man was made in the clay'. I don't rule Macro Evolution out because it's only been going for about 150 years or so, whereas astronomy today is the culmination of several millenia of ideas/discoveries across diverse cultures. Even now, when we all look at the same universe we draw conficting conclusions. Some are convinced we live in a closed universe, others are equaly convinced it is an open universe.

ArgoNavis looks like you are right about the 'Star' of Bethlehem, as no star or comet seems to account for the phenomena. The comet idea lost ground when it was discovered that some planetary conjunctions took place around the time. I don't know about a Supernova, as I would have thought someone would have detected the remnants of it. The Conjunctions and Occultations, whilst not being astronomically spectacular (although one was), would certainly have been astrologically spectacular. The word 'Magi' translated as 'wise men' can mean 'Astronomer/Astrologer'.

Rob I understand most people's reservations about a book written after the events. There are less than 25 years between the crucification and Paul's letter to the Thessalonian church written around 51 AD. The gospels were written between 60 AD and 70 AD, although some recent studies that suggest they may be even ealier. The earliest surviving part of the New Testament is a fragment of John's gospel AKA the John Rylands Papyri, written in Coptic and dated between 110 AD to 140 AD, which at most is only 70 years after the original. Of the 11 remaining disciples, only John died of old age, the rest were executed/martyred. As the leaders of the church faced growing persecution from the Roman empire, the need to write eye witnesses accounts intensified.

I am wholly indebted to the scientists who discover these documents, painstakingly restore them and preserve them before we can translate them. I therefore have no issue with science and faith, but appreciate that others do.

[xelasnave]

While one seeks to prove something others will seek to prove it is not. It would be a sad day when there is not a defence to the prosecution as it were.
I hope that is fundamentaly correct.
alex

[xelasnave]

or live and let live:) . You are OK mate:thumbsup:
alex

[Doug]

Hmmm, well it is the word (Magus) from which we get the word Magician.
They were priests of the Zoroastrian religeon (founded in Persia, and mentioned in Daniel). They travelled around in groups much larger than the supposed three. But yes, they were astrologers among other things.

[xelasnave]

Consider two statements one made 50 years ago and one today and think about the difficulties of recording anything with certain acuracy.
"I have had this joint but I am gay"
and
"I have had this joint but I am gay"
one is an expression of disgust with a place and description of happiness yet the other not really very long after refers to drug use and sexuality.
So I can see the difficulties the scholars must have had working thru it all:) .
alex

[Doug]

Alex the statement from 50 Years ago ;"I have had this joint but I am gay"
was part of additional text. "I have had this joint but I am gay, in spite of the ridiculous goings on there, I have much happiness and contentment in my new surroundings."
The statement from recent times + additional text: "I have had this joint but I am gay so I fear it is only a matter of time now before the effects of my lifestyle will impact on my health."
Context is a great Alli for those who wish to interpret things. 'One liners' belong in third rate American (comedy?)


your witness.:D

[avandonk]

All you poor pathetic people this is a wake up message. YOU are responsible for your decisions in life. Not some deity that looks over your shoulder to see if you have sinned. All the preceding diatribe leaves me angry at the lack of clear thinking of supposedly educated people.

We do not live in the dark ages anymore, or do we? To even waste time on arguing about primitive beliefs and then compare to scientific understanding just beggars belief.

We may as well argue about how many angels can dance on a pin!

I refuse to even argue with primitive beliefs and people that base their lives on fictional accounts that were written four hundred years after the events.

Bert

[Doug]

Bert posts:
That is the message of most religions. People are responsible for their own actions. The Agnostic atheist types say no one is responsible for their actions cause they just evolved that way and things will get better as time goes on.............apparently they don't read the newspapers :rolleyes:

Then there are those who claim to be unaccountable because their daddy would't take them to see the circus when they were young.:screwy:

[Doug]

I forgot to mention those poor unfortunates who were born with bank robber genes and others with homicide genes. Even the Jewish priests had their Levi's.couldn't help themselves:P

[iceman]

I think this thread has reached it's end. Nothing new is being brought to the table that hasn't been discussed over the last few threads on this in the past few weeks.